During budgeting season, management has two important responsibilities: developing a sound financial plan and helping the Board understand it well enough to evaluate and approve it.
That second responsibility can be easy to underestimate.
Directors aren't involved in every detail management considers while developing the budget. When it's time to present the plan, management has to turn weeks or even months of detailed financial work into information the Board can readily understand and use.
Annual budgeting has always required financial institutions to make educated assumptions about the future. Loan growth, deposit trends, funding costs, operating expenses, and other variables all shape the strategic decisions that guide an institution through the coming year.
What’s changed in recent years is the level of uncertainty surrounding those assumptions. Shifts in customer behavior, margin pressure, changing economic conditions, and evolving growth expectations have reinforced an important reality: a budget built around a single set of assumptions may not provide management with the flexibility it needs when conditions change.
After 40 years in this industry, I’ve seen the same pattern in too many boardrooms: planning treated as a static "check-the-box" exercise. In today’s volatile market, that is a liability.
Having worked with thousands of financial institutions, I’ve seen the full spectrum of planning processes. My own journey — from running our support department for years to serving as a hands-on budget and ALM model operator for our clients — has given me a front-row seat to the challenges you face. I’ve helped institutions prepare for everything from intense regulatory exams to high-stakes board presentations. Needless to say, I have seen exactly what works and what doesn't when it comes to effective planning.
There’s one topic I hear consistently come up in discussions amongst financial institution leaders: succession planning. Or, as I call it, The Succession Elephant – the awkward, looming, unsolved topic occupying space in boardrooms across the country. Leaders know turnover is happening. They know it’s an aggressive risk. Yet they often don’t know where to start tackling it.
This very topic was a core focus of my breakout session at the FMS Forum in New Orleans this past June. Because it's so critical – yet rarely nipped in the bud – I wanted to share a strategic framework for solving 'the succession elephant' before facing unexpected vacancies and their broader implications without a safety net in place.
If we’re being honest, the annual planning season is rarely met with a standing ovation. For many financial institution leaders, it feels like a chore – a box to check for the regulators or a heavy document destined to collect dust on a shelf.
The problem is that many management teams are still operating under the old rules of planning. These misconceptions keep brilliant leaders buried in "spreadsheet land," where they spend their time managing data instead of managing the organization.
If you want to move from a static plan to a dynamic strategy, it is time to debunk these five common myths.
I'm thrilled to share a recap of last week’s first-ever Plansmith Forum, which was an incredible success!
Attendance & Experience
We welcomed 21 attendees representing a wide range of leadership and management roles from financial institutions across the country. Hosted at the Renaissance Hotel near our corporate offices in Schaumburg, IL, the event delivered two full days of learning, collaboration, networking, and social engagement with the Plansmith team — and, most importantly, with industry peers.
“Can’t stress enough the importance of talking with other Compass users.”
“Wonderful event for new and experienced users!”
As we navigate 2026, the financial landscape continues to evolve at a breakneck pace. From my time as a Senior Examiner and Capital Markets Specialist, I've seen firsthand what separates institutions that thrive from those that merely survive. In 2026, financial leaders must prioritize what I’ll call the "4 Ds": Deposits, Data, Decay, and Documentation. This new order reflects the true hierarchy of risk and strategic necessity. Ignore these at your peril; master them, and you secure a competitive and regulatory advantage.
I’ve always said that deposit pricing (a/k/a “betas”), decay rates, and asset prepayments are “the big three” when it comes to interest rate risk (IRR) model assumptions. Why is that? Well, it’s because those are the ones that most people think have the greatest impact on model results, and, as a result, those are the ones that examiners tend to look at the closest. And while I don’t always agree that prepayments matter all that much (depending on the duration of any given institution’s intermediate- and longer-term assets), the current falling rate environment is certain to again shine the spotlight on them at regulatory examinations. As such, we thought it would be a good time to review a few key concepts and then go through the best practices to be sure you’re exam ready. So first, the key concepts:
For many bank leaders, "peer analysis" has long been treated as just another checkbox – useful for satisfying board expectations or preparing for exams, but rarely central to true strategic planning. That mindset, however, is rapidly shifting, and for good reason.
When approached strategically, peer data becomes a potent force. It can uncover hidden inefficiencies, highlight competitive strengths, and drive sharper, more confident decisions. This isn't about comparing for comparison's sake; it's about understanding your bank's performance in its true context and leveraging that clarity to lead more effectively.
At Plansmith, we're helping institutions transform this process. With the BankersGPS Peer Module, we turn raw peer data into powerful decision-making support, empowering leadership teams to elevate both performance and accountability.
What do massive shifts in deposits, economic uncertainty, and falling interest rates have in common? The potential to wreak absolute havoc on your institution’s liquidity position. One unplanned or mismanaged situation could mean falling out of policy limits, or worse.